Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsgate, British Columbia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Kingsgate, British Columbia

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There's not a single reliable source online to put in this article, and it seems like nothing more than a small stub. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Reywas92Talk 03:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/offices-bureaux/536-eng.html
 * Would the Canadian Border Control as a source do the trick? It may be a small article but if you could find a source, it might not be worth deleting. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sourcing doesn't really matter as long as the content can be easily merged to the border crossing article: there's no reason to split it into one article for each side of the crossing, and another for the crossing itself. It just splits the sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect.The article says nothing of significance that can't be included as a sentence or two in Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Athel cb (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect per prior comment. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added some content. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you also included the information at Moyie River, but I don't think this should be included here or that it justifies this article. This is not significant coverage, it just identifies the place, which is the border crossing area. They have 199 locations where water was tested, and this primary source data isn't the sort of thing that belongs in the articles of each sampling site. The border crossing article should certainly mention it's along the river though. Reywas92Talk 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.